ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090806

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Daily Motivations"

When you’re finished changing, you’re finished! -- Benjamin Franklin

Proactive people take the initiative and responsibility to make things happen. They cause action rather than being victims of circumstance. -- Chris MacAllister



Helping Your People Deal with Change

Leaders play a critical role when it comes to change. Whether your team is facing large organizational transitions or smaller (yet still painful) procedural adjustments, you need to help everyone cope with and successfully implement different ways of doing things. Here are a few ideas to remember and use:

Don’t plant seeds in untilled soil! Just as in nature, the seeds of organizational change need to be planted in soil that has been prepared to accept the germinating ideas. So, involve others in the planning and cultivating of change initiatives. And remember that the ground has to be fertilized with rich additives, so supply information outlining the good business reasons for the change.

Prioritize for change. You will not have enough time to take care of everything that comes along during transitional periods. Therefore, make sure you help team members prioritize and take care of the things that matter most. Start a priority list and arrange it in High, Medium, and Low order. Complete the High priorities before progressing to the Medium ... and then the Low.

Monitor your team’s temperature. Once a week, have a short, informal “how are things going” chat with each person who reports to you. And pay attention to how team members behave and interact with one another – especially when working on tasks and projects that involve significant change with specified deadlines. If you sense that things aren’t right, investigate each potential problem and take whatever action is appropriate to “nip it in the bud.”



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"I am the First and the Last; there is no other God." (Isaiah 44:6)

English royalty hold lavish ceremonies to establish their positions, often spending months on elaborate preparations. When Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in Westminster Abbey in London, she rode in a gold coach pulled by eight magnificent grays.

However, the throne of an earthly king or queen, cannot compare to the glories of the King of kings. If we took away the royal trappings from any human sovereign, he would look just like one of us. His honor is derived from ceremonies and the homage paid him by other people, which can be removed in a moment. He may have the power of an army behind him, but in himself, he is a sinful, imperfect human just like you and me.

God's reign is different. God does not derive His right to rule from anyone or anything. No title was bestowed on Him by another, and there is no higher authority anywhere than His. The great I AM always does what He knows is best and answers to no one. His reign is so magnificent that we cannot even comprehend any part of it.

God's rule is supreme, paramount, and absolute. He has power to do anything that needs to be done. He is present everywhere so no one can hide from Him or escape His scrutiny. He is all-knowing, so there is nothing about which He is unaware. Amazingly, this great and sovereign God loves you and me unconditionally, caring for the smallest need of the least of us.



"The Patriot Post"

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington



FAITH AND FAMILY

"The New York Times recently warned its readers about a wacky scientist in the Obama administration. But the fish wrap of record let the real nut job off the hook. Reporting last week on the president's choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Times writer Gardiner Harris noted that praise for Dr. Francis S. Collins 'was not universal or entirely enthusiastic.' The geneticist is causing 'unease,' according to the Times, because of 'his very public embrace of religion.' Stomachs are apparently churning over a book Collins wrote describing his conversion to Christianity. It's called -- gasp! -- 'The Language of G0d.' Harris intoned: 'Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins' evangelism.' And ... that's it. Yes, the mere profession of Collins' faith is enough to warrant red flags and ominous declamations. A quarter of all Americans identify themselves as evangelical Christians and 'publicly embrace their religion.' But to the Times, Collins' open affiliation with 60 million American believers in Christ is headline news." -- columnist Michelle Malkin

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." -- Ronald Reagan



RE: THE LEFT

"The [Left] usually presumes that if the rich and near rich get less, someone else will get more. Redistribution achieves a better social balance. Sometimes that happens. But sometimes when the rich get less, no one else gets more. Regardless of how the rich earned their money -- trading bonds, performing surgery, starting new companies, providing legal work -- it's no longer so lucrative. The rich get poorer, but no one else gets richer. Society is worse off. 'Trickle-down economics' is a despised phrase and concept to many, but it also embodies a harsh reality. The rich often play a pivotal role in U.S. economic growth, and if they are enfeebled, then the consequences are widespread." -- columnist Robert J. Samuelson



POLITICAL FUTURES

"Frankly, I'm not sure if I'm just being guilty of wishful thinking, but I have a hunch that while Obama is doing his best to destroy America and capitalism, the lemming-in-chief is leading the party faithful blindly off the cliff. No matter how personally popular the president might be, and I am beginning to doubt those particular numbers, the same certainly can't be said for his colleagues and cronies. The truth is, Pelosi and Reid are about as popular as mumps and chicken pox. Even if the New York Times and Chris Matthews still get a tingle up their leg when they look at Obama, most Americans hate socialized medicine and cap and trade; they hate the idea of the feds being in bed with the unions and nationalizing banks and car companies; they hate the idea of dismantling our missile defense system at the very same time that Iran and North Korea are threatening us; they particularly hate the idea of our president going abroad and bad-mouthing America every chance he gets. Even Bill Clinton stopped doing that once he was past draft age and had gotten a haircut. Unless I'm very much mistaken, those Democrats who are going along in order to get along are likely to discover next year that the voters are going to tell them in no uncertain words to move along." -- columnist Burt Prelutsky



THE LAST WORD

"'As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, / A soul from purgatory springs.' So went a mantra from 16th-century Europe, when salvation -- or, so the idea went -- could be purchased by anyone willing to pay the price: sold to the sinner for cold hard cash. Sins were absolved, sinners sanctified, offenses forgotten. Money, not the commitment to a better life, promised that debauchery and divinity could cohabit in the ledgers of the holy treasurer. By virtue of a self-promoting religiosity, these indulgences, as they were called, purported to place spiritual caps on the consequences of forbidden acts. A weekend of decadent and intemperate living brought no punishment for breaking with accepted piety. In theory, at least, a person could excuse all the depravity he wanted, as long as those indulgent acts were economically sanctioned by appropriate authorities. Contrary to the hopes of the sinner, however, financial machinations had not the power to sanctify the sinner. The sins remained even when the money did not. ... Is Cap-and-Trade just another politically indulgent Indulgence? The comparison is not without merit. .... Corporations that emitted excessively sinful emissions would be permitted to atone for their conduct by dropping punitive offerings into the governmental coffer (i.e., purchasing 'carbon credits'). Wherefore, if a corporation feels particularly righteous, it can demonstrate contrition by purchasing indulgences for its harmful conduct and/or trading with a non-offending corporation for rights to its accumulated footprints of the carbon variety. Whether offering lucre directly to the Government or trading with non-offending corporations for rights to their unblemished credits, the offending acts still occur, however, and like the sins of that earlier version, the environmental vice remains. The only real change is that which is found in the financial ledgers of the Government, or the pockets of the ministers of financial regulation -- those who oversee the process. ... Rather than being wary of the market's ability to shepherd good energy and environmental policy, we should protect our flocks from promises of false profits made by false prophets." -- attorney Robert Kirchhoefer



"The Web"

Confucius Says:

Man who eat many Prunes get good run for money.


Baseball is wrong: Man with four balls cannot walk.



House Republicans Release $700B Health Care Plan

Some of the ideas in the $700 billion health care plan appeal to moderate Democrats, but with Republicans out of power, there's little likelihood their proposal will be enacted.

AP

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/29/house-republicans-release-b-health-care-plan/

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance, yet unlike Democratic proposals, wouldn't require either individuals or employers to get coverage.

Some of the ideas in the plan appeal to moderate Democrats, but with Republicans out of power, there's little likelihood their proposal will be enacted. Nonetheless, it will give GOP lawmakers under fire for their opposition to President Obama's plan something positive to point to when they go home for the congressional August break.

"We are introducing this bill because we support health care reform, but in way that empowers patients," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the House Republican Study Committee. "While the president continues to insist there is appetite for the status quo in Congress, it's not coming from Republicans."

The plan avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses. Instead, it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country. That idea won't please insurance commissioners from states with strong consumer protections, who have argued it will set off a "race to the bottom" that undermines coverage for those in frail health.

The Republican plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals. It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers. And it would allow employers to automatically sign workers up for the company's coverage -- similar to what's done with 401(k) retirement plans.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It would give doctors what amounts to veto power over recommendations from a new federal board that's been assigned to compare the benefits of new treatments, tests and medications. Recommendations from the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research could not be enacted without the approval of the medical specialty society that would be affected.

Republicans say their plan is fully paid for, but it hasn't been assessed yet by the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper for the costs of legislation.

It's also unclear how far the plan would go in reducing the number of uninsured, now nearly 50 million. Most independent analysts -- and the insurance industry -- say some sort of requirement to purchase insurance is needed to ensure coverage.



Clunker Program Throws a Rod

By Eric Peters

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/03/clunker-program-throws-a-rod/

When you give stuff away for free it tends to go away fast. Especially if it's money you're giving away for free.

The government, of course, seems not to understand this concept. Perhaps because it is other people's money it is always giving away.

Last week, the so-called "cash for clunker" program briefly threw a rod -- apparently because of the free-for-all ignited by a $1 billion dollar giveaway to finance the program. It seems there were more takers than anticipated. And the givers (taxpayers by proxy) insufficient to meet the demand. So the government announced late Wednesday evening that it would be "temporarily" suspending the program until it figures out what to do.

Translation: Until it figures out how to find more of your money to give away.

Well, the solution was quickly found. Within 24 hours, the House passed legislation that will fund the Great Clunker Giveaway of 2009 with another $2 billion of your money.

The program -- officially titled the Car Allowance Rebate System -- provided what amounted to government-provided store credits of between $3,500 and $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car if the applicant brought in an old "clunker" for trade-in.

The idea behind it all was to encourage the accelerated retirement of older, low-mileage cars in favor of new, higher mileage ones -- in order to encourage fuel-efficiency as well as give a boost to the stultified car industry.

But here's the catch. Well, the first catch:

The store credits are not like the usual trade-in credit a buyer receives for his old car. Instead of accepting the old car as a trade-in and then re-selling it on the used car lot, the dealership is required to have the traded-in car physically destroyed -- and with it, any remaining value it may have had. The "clunker credit" is supposed to compensate the dealer for the loss of the trade-in's value.

Under the old system, the traded-in car's value remained in the system until it had no value left -- at which point it was typically sent to the crusher for scrap. Under the new system, "clunkers" -- many of them with plenty of miles (and value) still left -- simply get thrown away.

You -- the taxpaying sucker -- pay the tab.

To put a finer point on it: The government forces you to pay taxes so it can throw away your neighbor's older car and give him $3,500 to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new one.

Isn't that nice of you?

Second catch:

The program touts all the fuel that will be saved, but how much fuel, really, is saved when a person trades in an 18 mpg "clunker" for a new car that gets 22 mpg? Four mpg, gross, in this example. Okay, but how much energy (most of it oil-sourced) goes into making a brand-new car? The net savings just got much smaller. Now factor in the lost value of the crushed "clunker" -- including parts that could have been recycled and re-used at much a lower net "energy cost" -- and the final value of the whole thing is probably nil as far as efficiency is concerned.

Meanwhile, there's a rush (temporary) on new cars, since $3,500-$4,500 off the sticker price is a strong inducement for consumers. On the other hand, has it occurred to anyone that a government subsidized new car at $3,500-$4,500 off sticker price is not a "sale"? The government is basically paying people to buy new cars.

What happens when the subsidies dry up?

Looks like we're about to find out -- as the kitty is already running dry.

So naturally, lawmakers are scrambling to find more of your tax money to give away in order to keep the shell game going. Michigan Rep. Candice Miller says "... this is simply the most stimulative (sic) $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn... the government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

Rep. Miller, it should be noted, is a Republican. Weren't Republicans supposed to be against Robin Hood-style giveaways?

A fine mess you've got us into, Obama!



Geithner Floats Obama’s Next Potential Big Move: A Tax Hike on the Middle Class

By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51885


In this June 18, 2009 file photo, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the Senate Banking Committee. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) - Appearing on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated President Obama’s next big move: a tax increase on middle-class Americans.

Geithner made it clear during the interview that the administration believes that new federal revenues are needed and he declined to rule out raising taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year to get those revenues.

During the interview, host George Stephanopoulos pointed out to Geithner that the “Congressional Budget Office estimates that your budget will add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.”

Stephanopoulos also noted that former Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman has said that a tax increase is needed.

“[I]ndependent analysts also say ... you're going to have to find new government revenues,” said Stephanopoulos. “The former deputy treasury secretary, Roger Altman, said: ‘It is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how.’ Is he right?”

Geither did not disagree with Altman.

“George it is absolutely right and very important for everyone to understand that we will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we are--can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” said Geithner.

Geithner said the country is going to have to face what he called “a very difficult challenge: in getting the size of the deficit down.

“And the necessary path to fiscal responsibility, the necessary path to getting this country living within our means again is not just health care reform, to bring down those costs, but we're going to do a range of other things,” Geithner said. “And that's going to be a very difficult challenge to this country. We can do this, it just requires the will to act.”

Asked Stephanopoulos:”Including new revenues?”

“Well, we're going to have to look at--we're going to have to do what is necessary,” said Geithner. “Remember the critical thing is people understand that when we have recovery established, led by the private sector, and we have to bring these down, deficits down very dramatically. We have to bring them down to a level where the amount we're borrowing from the world is stable at a reasonable level. And that's going to require some very hard choices. And we're going to have to try to do that in a way that does not add to the--unfairly to the burdens that the average American already faces.”

Asked Stephanopoulos: “But that's the dilemma, isn’t it?”

“That is the dilemma,” agreed Geithner.

Then Stephanopoulos asked: “The president has said that taxes won't go up for any Americans earning under $250,000. But it doesn't appear he's going to be able to keep that promise if you're going to bring the deficits down.”

“George, again,” said Geithner, "we can't make these judgments yet about exactly what it's going to take and how we're going to get there. But the very important thing, and no one is going to care about this more than the president of the United States, is for people to understand that we do not have a choice as a country. That if we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform. But that's necessary but not sufficient. We're going to do some other things as well.”

Stephanopoulos then tried to get Geithner to rule out a tax increase, which Geithner would not do.

“So revenues are on the table as well?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“Again, we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take,” said Geithner.

“But you're not ruling it out. You can't rule it out,” said Stephanopoulos.

“Well, I think that what the country needs to do is understand we're going to have to do what it takes,” said Geithner. “We're going to do what's necessary.”



Let ‘Em Rot: “Hiking” Americans Detained in Iran Are Pro-Syrian, Anti-Israel, Far-Left “Journalist” Activists

By Debbie Schlussel

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5868/let-em-rot-hiking-americans-detained-in-iran-are-pro-syrian-anti-israel-left-wing-journalist-activists/

Longtime readers know my point of view on this: whether you are American or not, a “journalist” or not, if you go to Iran or North Korea, you knew the likely consequences, you assumed the risk, and I couldn’t care less about you. I care far more about those held in these totalitarian states against their will, not dumb, left-wing Americans who went there willingly.



Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal:

Left-Wing Activist “Journalists” Detained “Hiking” near Iran

We have enough looming and present foreign and domestic policy problems to worry about. We don’t need to add people like Laura Ling and Roxana Saberi . . . and now, three “hikers” who are really left-wing, pro-Syrian, anti-Israel “activist” “journalists” from Berkeley–two of whom chose to leave America and live in the Arab Muslim Mid-East. They knew the risks when they went “hiking” on the Iranian border. (Hint: It’s not like vacationing in South Beach, and I don’t think they were really hiking.) Two of them chose to live in the Middle East. Tough luck that they got caught.

Oh, and if you think I believe the “they were just hiking” story, think again. Here’s a little bit of info about these far-left “hikers.” It seems that an Iranian prison might be a great place for them to spend some time.

* Sarah Shourd is an anti-Israel “journalist” who lives in the Middle East (probably in Damascus, Syria, from which she’s written some of her articles), writes sympathetic pieces about terrorist-host state Syria, attacking Israel, and taking her Syrian patrons’ false point of view that Israel’s Golan Heights is “occupied territory.” She also writes about how Israel oppresses the Syrians. Hilarious. I mean, no biggie that Bashir Al-Assad cuts his people apart limb by limb, like his father did to journalist Salim Al-Lawzi, that Syria has an atrocious human rights record and tortures dissidents, let’s concentrate on blaming the Jews. That’s her strategy.

Here’s a tip for Ms. Shourd: Israel annexed the Golan Heights years ago–you know, when Syria attacked Israel, went to war, and lost. Shourd lies and claims that Israel forced Syrian inhabitants of the Golan Heights to become Israeli citizens. Nauseatingly false. I have many Druze friends with family there. The Druze Arab inhabitants love the freedom they have as Israelis–of not having to worry if a conversation they have on the street will result in their limbs being amputated without anasthesia. The formely Syrian Druze of the Golan Heights rue the day when Syria gets it back (as Obama–and before him, Bush–have been pushing).

Shourd describes herself as a “ teacher-activist-writer from California currently based in the Middle East.” Well, we know for whom she’s an activist and writer–the Iranians-sponsored Syrians and other Islamic terrorists. I’m just worried about whom she is teaching.

* Shane Bauer is a UC Berkeley grad who has written for the far-left The Nation and “reported” for the Terrorist News Network a/k/a Al-Jazeera. He lives in the Muslim Mid-East, speaks Arabic and his Berkeley degree is in “Peace and Conflict Studies”–typical far-left degree for Jimmy Carter groupies. He lives and is based in Damascus, Syria–a nation for whom he’s toed the party line. From his Damascus digs, he’s written articles for left-wing media outlets about how Muslims in Syria love Obama but need to see him change American foreign policy toward Israel and the Islamic world. Sound like an “innocent hiker” to you?

* Joshua Fattal, also a Berkeley grad is an environmental activist who hosted a “resistance” radio show. Media reports say his father is Iraqi, and he said he was traveling there to get in touch with his roots.

He earned a degree in environmental economics and policy. He also taught high-school students in Berkeley and worked in New Hampshire.

He most recently worked and lived at Aprovecho Research Center in Cottage Grove, Ore. The nonprofit facility is located on a 40-acre ranch and is focused on sustainable living skills, sustainable forestry and organic gardening, its Web site states.

At Aprovecho, Fattal held a position as internship coordinator. He was a graduate of the program himself and traveled to small towns in Oregon and Guatemala to implement some of the sustainable living ideas taught at the center . . . .

While Fattal was at Aprovecho, he co-hosted a weekly radio show, “Rhythms and Resistance,” on the center’s community station.

These are the three “hiking” Americans who “accidentally” strayed into Iran. Things are not always as they seem. But, in this case, one thing’s quite clear. When you hear about Americans vacationing by hiking near Iran, you know something’s up. And it’s not innocent at all. These three were not mere “tourists.”

Sad that our government won’t send the right message to these activist, left-wing Americans who take unwarranted risks: You’re on your own.

I’d say, “Let ‘em rot in hell.” But, right now, they’re rotting in Iran. Close enough.

(Unfortunately, Iran will soon learn what useful idiots these are and set them free, just like they did with Saberi and just like Islamic terrorists did with their friend, Jill Carroll.)



Free from Religion

By Charles Sproull

I agree with the concept of "no religion," but from a different perspective. I spent 20 years of my life involved in several religions that didn't have much effect on my life, and 15 years involved in just plain non-religious living which lead me into vile lusts and addictions. But when I considered the eternal destiny of my soul and felt a strong attraction to Jesus, His divine influence through the new birth outlined in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38-42 made a big difference in my life. He overwhelmingly filled my heart with His wonderful love, joy, and peace, and awareness of His holiness that cleansed all addictions and immoral lusts out of my heart.

Jesus said He "came to give [us] life ... more abundantly" (John 10:10b), not just another religion. More abundant life for me is longer, healthier, more loving, more joyful, and more productive (normal marriage 33 years, 5 normal boys and girls with high moral, academic and professional standards). What's wrong with that? And I believe real 1st century Christianity (following Jesus as His disciple) is the highest quality of life possible to live on this earth, while preparing to live with God in eternity.

My belief is originally based on studying the sacred literature of all the major world religions. The Bible has the most accurate description of Creation and of emotional and spiritual things happening in the world today, and has the most wonderful promises and well-documented procedures for receiving them, the only direct preparation for eternity, and the strongest most severe warnings for not receiving His promises.

For example, see 1 Peter 4:17 and 2 Thes 1:8-9 for the question and answer - is it important to "obey the gospel"? And see Romans 6:3-7 to learn how to "obey the gospel." When you look objectively at all the details in the big picture, it all corresponds and makes sense. The gospel of Jesus (death, burial and resurrection - 1 Corinthians 15:3) corresponds to the three steps in the natural birth process (born of water and of breath - John 3:4), and to the three steps of the new birth process ("born again of water and of the Spirit" - John 3:5).

* * * * * * *

1. Fertilization/Conception/Begotten = "begotten again of the gospel"
2. Come out of the water = water baptism
3. Breathe with audible sound of gasping or coughing = "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [with audible evidence of] speaking on other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance" (Acts 2:4, 38-42)

* * * * * * *

1. Believe gospel and Repentance = death to sin and self will.

2. water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins" = burial with Him. Jesus allowed His precious blood to be shed on the cross "for remission" meaning for the purpose of providing remission. Beginning of the day of Pentecost, believers began being baptized for the purpose of receiving remission (forgiveness, washing away guilt of past sins).

3. receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (regeneration) = resurrection into new life of Christ - discipleship - real Christianity.

* * * * * * *

My faith in Jesus is not the mystical faith (belief only) of catholic and protestant theologies (should be pronounced theory-ologies, the-illogics), which are all based on misinterpretations of Scriptures and misunderstandings of Bible vocabulary (diminished meanings of words and taken out of context).

But I love the original definitions of His words and the spiritual principles of pure life (free from all worldly emotions and spiritual pollutions that won't be in heaven) and their practical applications in my life. For example, no one in the Bible "believed by faith," they all did things by faith, motivated by hope. In Hebrews CH 11 and James Ch 2, we read that real faith:

1. begins (takes root) by believing in God,

2. begins growing when we believe God's promises enough to hope (meaning strong desire, fervent expectation) for them and

3. produces fruit when we believe God's procedures for receiving His promises, then trust and obey.

Please feel free to contact me for your honest comments and questions.

God bless you, and have a wonderful, free American day.

Charles Sproull, Springville IN



HOW TO LIVE LIFE.....

http://www.hamaraforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29554

Be Calm ..... Quiet ...... Tranquil

Bloom As Often You Can

Stay Close to your family

Explore the world around you

Enjoy the relaxing rhythm of waves

Watch the Moon Rise

Spread your wings and take off on your own

Then enjoy the comfort of coming home again

Life is short

Please... While you can... Take time to enjoy all the little pleasures that God has provided for you.... If you need some hints.... Go back and read this again!

Attached image(s)

Music is moral law. It gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, a charm to sadness and a gaiety and life to everything. It is the essence of order and leads to all that is good, true and beautiful..... AND Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life. ~Ludwig van Beethoven



SHE IS PREGNANT - HE SAVED HER LIFE

http://letterdash.com/Gold_24/SHE-IS-PREGNANT-HE-SAVED-HER-LIFE

She is pregnant, he had just saved her from a fire in her house, rescuing her by carrying her out of the house into her front yard, while he continued to fight the fire.

When he finally got done putting the fire out, he sat down to catch his breath and rest.

A photographer from the Charlotte , North Carolina newspaper, noticed her in the distance looking at the fireman He saw her walking straight toward the fireman and wondered what she was going to do. As he raised his camera, she came up to the tired man who had saved her life and the lives of her babies and kissed him just as the photographer snapped this photograph.

The Kiss.....

And people say animals are dumb "The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God."



THE 5 MINUTE CHOCOLATE CAKE FOR ONE PERSON.......HOW NEAT

5 MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE
4 tablespoons flour
4 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons cocoa
1 egg
3 tablespoons milk
3 tablespoons oil
3 tablespoons chocolate chips (optional)
A small splash of vanilla extract
1 large coffee mug (MicroSafe)

Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well. Add the egg and mix thoroughly.
Pour in the milk and oil and mix well..
Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla extract, and mix again.
Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts.
The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed!
Allow to cool a little, and tip out onto a plate if desired.
EAT ! (this can serve 2 if you want to feel slightly more virtuous).
And why is this the most dangerous cake recipe in the world?
Because now we are all only 5 minutes away from chocolate cake at any time
of the day or night!



Love Ya

One day a woman's husband died, and on that clear, cold morning, in the warmth of their bedroom, the wife was struck with the pain of learning that sometimes there isn't "anymore". No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat, no more "just one minute." Sometimes, what we care about the most gets all used up and goes away, never to return before we can say good-bye, say "I love you."

So while we have it, it's best we love it, care for it, fix it when it's broken and heal it when it's sick. This is true for marriage ......And old cars ... And children with bad report cards, and dogs with bad hips, and aging parents and grandparents. We keep them because they are worth it, because we are worth it.

Some things we keep -- like a best friend who moved away or a sister-in-law, brother-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, after divorce. There are just some things that make us happy, no matter what.

Life is important, like people we know who are special.. And so, we keep them close!

I received this from someone who thought I was a 'keeper'! Then I sent it to the people I think of in the same way... Now it's your turn to send this to all those people who are "keepers" in your life, including the person who sent it, if you feel that way. Suppose one morning you never wake up, do all your friends know you love them?

I was thinking...I could die today, tomorrow or next week, and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that needed rekindling or three words needing to be said.

Let every one of your friends know you love them. Even if you think they don't love you back, you would be amazed at what those three little words and a smile can do. And just in case I'm gone tomorrow.

I LOVE YA!!!

Live today to the fullest because tomorrow is not promised..



"The e-mail Bag"

These bits of humor are from a book called “Disorder in the American Courts”, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty year old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty.
________________________________________

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: And where was the location of the accident?
WITNESS: Approximately milepost 499.
ATTORNEY: And where is milepost 499?
WITNESS: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Sir, what is your IQ?
WITNESS: Well, I can see pretty well, I think.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Did you blow your horn or anything?
WITNESS: After the accident?
ATTORNEY: Before the accident.
WITNESS: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your patrol car's red and blue lights flashing?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
ATTORNEY: What did she say?
WITNESS: What disco am I at?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Did he kill you?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: You were there until the time you left, is that true?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And these stairs, did they go up also?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't you?
WITNESS: I went to Europe, Sir.
ATTORNEY: And did you take your new wife?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK?
WITNESS: (Nods)
ATTORNEY: What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
____________________________________________

ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
____________________________________________

And saving the best for last...
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.